get_character_subjects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a 'formatted list' or error, but lacks details on behavior such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes an error. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by args and returns. It uses minimal sentences without waste, though the structure with separate sections is slightly verbose for such a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks details on output format, error handling, and behavioral traits, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'character_id' refers to a character and that subjects include examples like anime and games. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could specify ID format or source more clearly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subjects where a character appears'), and it distinguishes the resource type (subjects like anime, games). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subject_characters' or 'get_character_details', which might handle related but different queries, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'browse_subjects', 'search_characters', and 'get_character_details', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.